This is not an answer. I can interpret this as two conflicting decisions:1) "People must die." "We can give everything for wildlife."2) "Wildlife must die." “We can give nothing for wildlife. We can only take everything for our needs. ”

I think that life is the greatest value, and we are life too. We cannot accept extinction as a decision.

If we accept the rule, we need nature only as a resource. We will destroy the value of our mind.

Where is the golden mean between both coasts?

For example, you have an island. It has an area of ​​ten square miles.1) What area will you use for your needs?2) What area will you reserve for your children's needs?3) Which area will you never use? It will be reserved for wildlife.

This is not an answer. I can interpret this as two conflicting decisions:1) "People must die." "We can give everything for wildlife."2) "Wildlife must die." “We can give nothing for wildlife. We can only take everything for our needs. ”

I think that life is the greatest value, and we are life too. We cannot accept extinction as a decision.

If we accept the rule, we need nature only as a resource. We will destroy the value of our mind.

Where is the golden mean between both coasts?

For example, you have an island. It has an area of ​​ten square miles.1) What area will you use for your needs?2) What area will you reserve for your children's needs?3) Which area will you never use? It will be reserved for wildlife.

That is and will always be a variable based on the other variables such as water, climate, arability, size and type of the native animals (predators have larger areas than grazers), topography, geology, etc., etc.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

That is and will always be a variable based on the other variables such as water, climate, arability, size and type of the native animals (predators have larger areas than grazers), topography, geology, etc., etc.

This shows that trying to calculate the amount of resources is a bad idea. You need to eat now, and they need to live now. I was born in the Soviet Union, and we tried to maintain a planned economy, which didn’t change the essence of human relations, but gave rise to a bunch of problems that could not be solved at all.

The amount of resources of course is a wealth factor. The question is precisely in terms of how much to take and how much to leave. Perhaps even all the resources of the island are not enough to meet the minimum needs of one person. And here again there is a choice, to eat away everything and wait or leave as it is and swim somewhere else.

Suppose there is fresh water on the island, and it is enough to provide one hundred people. Here are the choices:1) Reproduce up to a hundred people and do not leave anything else.2) Do not multiply and leave everything to others.3) Take some part, but not all.